The Crystal Award Broke, Just Like Liberalism
Even the usually hostile press was aghast when on April 13 a bedraggled anti-nuclear activist slipped past Secret Service agents during a speech by President Reagan in Las Vegas at an awards ceremony of the National Association of Broadcasters and smashed a crystal award at the feet of the ex-president.
Shards of crystal exploded violently about the podium, some falling on President Reagan's head. Looking stunned, President Reagan watched as a Secret Service agent instinctively shielded him. Two other agents brusquely hustled the flake (later identified as Paul Springer, founder of the anti-nuclear group "100th Monkey") off stage. Gaining his famous composure and sense of humor, President Reagan quipped, "Was that a Democrat by any chance?"
President Reagan's quip is more apt than he probably intended. A fanatic hippie arrogantly intruding upon an ex-president's speech to commit a meaningless, destructive act to gain attention for a left-wing cause is a perfect paradigm of the political tactics of the liberal intelligentsia in this country.
Having consistently failed for more than 20 years to gain mainstream approval for their slate of leftist pet peeves, America's liberals now regularly resort to colorful publicity stunts, such as smashing crystal statues at the feet of famous octogenarians. Other examples of this dubious political methodology include spiking trees in the Pacific Northwest, sanctimonious charity rock concerts, tossing eggs and vegetables at public officials not sufficiently enthusiastic about perverted sex, and the ever-popular but seldom effective hunger strike.
These tactics are the result of failing to win approval for the
leftist agenda through the standard political process. The landslide electoral defeats of the liberal mouthpieces of the Democratic Party in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 have proven the futility of expecting the American electorate to support candidates so far to the left of the U.S. mainstream. Additionally, the current crises of AIDS, the soaring illegitimate birth rate, the dissolution of the family and family values and the drug abuse epidemic have all finally caused most Americans to turn their backs on the inane, narcissistic and dangerous indulgences of the "progressive" 1960s.
Clearly, the nation has been turning rightward in national politics since that turbulent and destructive decade. The proof in the pudding remains the enormous victories of Presidents Reagan and Bush in the 1980s. Liberals do realize this fact, although they will take great pains and spout convoluted reasoning to avoid admitting it. Hence the need for unconventional tactics, such as Springer's Las Vegas stunt.
The fact that these tactics are often uncivilized, brainless and offensive does not deter the keepers of America's liberal flame. After all, their version of eternal truth and political correctness is the only one that counts; it is only the ignorance and intellectual inability of America's populace to comprehend "progressive" verities which causes most citizens to constantly reject their agenda. Just ask any university professor what he thinks of the Reagan presidency.
The proper perspective in which to put all of this is one of disapproval moderated with understanding. After all, the prevalence of liberal shock tactics indicates a certain level of desperation. These tactics will inevitably do nothing to increase public support for causes such as "100th Monkey," and indeed run the risk of further alienating the mainstream from these fringe groups. So the next time a Berkeley-reject assaults a senior citizen, look upon it as not as an offensive violation of someone's personal rights, but rather as a sign of the political times, one which may metaphorically read, "Merge Right."
Roy F. Unger Jr.
Havre de Grace
As a high school journalist on the school paper, I am outraged that a newspaper would print a story about someone with AIDS without asking the family or even considering the family's feelings and rights to privacy.
The former tennis pro, Arthur Ashe, has kept this part of his personal life just that, personal. He obviously did not want the entire world to know about this tragic and extremely personal part of his life.
Yes, the purpose of the media is to inform the public, but is it at the expense of individuals and their rights?
I am considering this field of study in college, but I don't want to have any part in the media where a hot story that might sell would take precedence over the feelings of an individual.
Mr. Ashe is no longer in the spotlight or even running for a public office, so why should his life and his family's life be turned upside down and invaded? This man has a right to live and die in peace without everyone knowing his private business.
Rebecca K. Hewitt
Accuracy in the Media